What messes up dial symmetry?

[Etschell]

Some would argue that the date mess it up. I argue that it is the cyclops. Just take a look at a SD4k versus a SubC date.

I think the date without the cyclops is nearly perfectly balanced.

[dafuture]

I'd agree with that. I think the cyclops makes the dial look overly heavy on the right side, whereas on the SD4k the small date window doesn't affect the overall look too much.

[sco]

If we are talking about symmetry, then I would say that the SDC date wheel position is too far towards the middle.

The Sub date is perfect to me...

[Rolex addict]

Never really thought about it. I like the date function. It's the one thing I miss on my Daytonas.

[douglasf13]

Well, a watch without the time and no crown would be even more symmetrical, but I tend to pick function over form in this case.

Speaking of the SD4k, they actually screwed up the symmetry a bit. The Rolex date wheel is inset to accommodate the cyclops, so, on the older SeaDwellers, they downsized the dial a bit to bring the date window closer to the minute track. In the current version, they used the same dial size as the SubDate, so there's too much space between the date and the minute track, which looks odd. Between that and the end links jutting out past the lugs, the old SeaDweller was much better sorted.

Here's a comparison of old vs. new to illustrate what I'm saying:

[droptopman]

I love a classic Sub, 4, 5 and 6 digits. But also like Rolex sport watches with a date and cyclops. Do not think it really messes up dial symmetry but does change the look slightly. I like to have some diversity so both for me. I do like the SD but it does not fit me well so not an option.

If I had to chose only one watch it probably would be a classic Submariner (no date).

[DCheeta]

Really, if you're talking true symmetry this isn't even subjective. Having the date at all makes a dial layout asymmetrical.

I vote "both". I much prefer watches with no date for this reason.

Although I do appreciate the certain Rolex charm in a cyclops, and I love the Sea Dweller's date without a cyclops because I feel like the SD is basically saying "F off" to all of the other date models.

[Mystro]

OCD red flag. Why not have the crown as a option?

[Devildog]

Originally Posted by douglasf13

Well, a watch without the time and no crown would be even more symmetrical, but I tend to pick function over form in this case.

Speaking of the SD4k, they actually screwed up the symmetry a bit. The Rolex date wheel is inset to accommodate the cyclops, so, on the older SeaDwellers, they downsized the dial a bit to bring the date window closer to the minute track. In the current version, they used the same dial size as the Sub, so there's too much space between the date and the minute track, which looks odd. Between that and the end links jutting out past the lugs, the old SeaDweller was much better sorted.

Here's a comparison of old vs. new to illustrate what I'm saying:

Agreed 100% I'd go so far as to say the 16600 might just be the best proportioned sports rolex of recent times

[GB-man]

Neither is an issue for me. I do however loathe 4:30 date placements on other watches.

[Etschell]

Originally Posted by Mystro

OCD red flag. Why not have the crown as a option?

its rarely debated. this was on one topic, not lines of text etc.

[DJRikki]

I dont mind the dial stuff but picked the GMT II over the Sub as the bezel was more symmetrical

[AK797]

Symmetry is not a big issue for me, if it was it would preclude far too many watches.

[Psmith]

Non-issue for me.

[SeaDweller50]

Cyclops. What was Rolex thinking?

[bjw]

Originally Posted by Airborne

Cyclops. What was Rolex thinking?

Quite simply, They were thinking that they are selling/marketing high end time pieces to middle age men whose eye sight probably isn't that of a 25 year old anymore. By making the date easier to read, it would appeal to said the demographic.

I like the Cyclopes for that reason.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[douglasf13]

Originally Posted by bjw

Quite simply, They were thinking that they are selling/marketing high end time pieces to middle age men whose eye sight probably isn't that of a 25 year old anymore. By making the date easier to read, it would appeal to said the demographic.

I like the Cyclopes for that reason.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The Rolex cyclops showed up about the same time the Glycine Airman showed up with a cyclops. I think it was simply to aid in legibility for all ages, not necessarily only middle aged guys, although it certainly helps the latter.

[Ben.McDonald7]

I think the only thing that messes up symmetry is if the date is somewhere between 4 and 5 o'clock. To me the date seems perfectly balanced at 3 or 6 depending on the watch. I used to not be a fan of the cyclops when I was only into Omega's but now having 2 Rolex's with cyclops I don't mind at all and the dial seems perfectly balanced. I still think I may prefer a no-date sub but I don't think the others are not symmetrical.

[saskmh]

I do think that the no date dials are the slickest looking dials out there and that a date window throws it off a bit. However, I am a guy who NEEDS a date on his watch otherwise I wouldn't know what century I was in. To many the cyclops is an iconic part of a Rolex, Personally when i got my first cyclops watch i hated the magnifier. It has grown on me since.

What I would really love to see Rolex come out with is a sport model with the date at 6 oclock, or at 12 oclock just below the coronet.

[capote]

What really bothers me is that the hour, minute and seconds hand doesn't look exactly the same.

[Melchizedek]

Originally Posted by Etschell

Some would argue that the date mess it up. I argue that it is the cyclops. Just take a look at a SD4k versus a SubC date.

I think the date without the cyclops is nearly perfectly balanced.

This...




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[osamu]

Neither really bothers me as far as symmetry is concerned (although overall still prefer no cyclops),

If anything I think it is the cyclops more than just the date window. With the cyclops, the marker is just too big, not to mention at all other angles besides straight on, there is no date visible and a bubble on the crystal.

Without the cyclops, the date is a little small, but I do find it more balanced. I've actually always thought a 3 o'clock day-date (like on the Seikos) is more balanced than just a date.

[JacksonStone]

To my taste, the cyclops on the SubC helps with symmetry, because it creates the visual illusion that the date window/wheel is in line with the lume markers. Absent a cyclops, the date looks too close to center/too far from the rehaut. Douglas's post demonstrates the latter point well.

Symmetry is ideally achieved on the no-date Sub, but I think the cyclops does the best job of mitigating the concession made for the need to include a date.

[douglasf13]

Originally Posted by JacksonStone

To my taste, the cyclops on the SubC helps with symmetry, because it creates the visual illusion that the date window/wheel is in line with the lume markers. Absent a cyclops, the date looks too close to center/too far from the rehaut. Douglas's post demonstrates the latter point well.

Symmetry is ideally achieved on the no-date Sub, but I think the cyclops does the best job of mitigating the concession made for the need to include a date.

Yeah, oddly enough, the Tudor Subs (and even Squale Sub copies) look better with the cyclops removed, because the ETA date wheel is further to the outside, but it doesn't look as good with the cyclops, because the cyclops is pushed further towards the edge of the crystal.

***not my pic

[Savitr]

I actually like the date and cyclops

[locutus49]

Humans are genetically biased towards symmetry in selecting mates, as it was a sign of health in the neolithic era and earlier. So I understand the hard-wired preference most have for symmetry, but I like the cyclops and think asymmetry can have its own attractions.

[douglasf13]

Originally Posted by locutus49

Humans are genetically biased towards symmetry in selecting mates, as it was a sign of health in the neolithic era and earlier. So I understand the hard-wired preference most have for symmetry, but I like the cyclops and think asymmetry can have its own attractions.

Yeah, plus, the watch's crown is always going to make the whole thing seem unsymmetrical (even though Rolex does thin the lugs on one side to help balance things.)

[DramaTurtle]

I prefer asymmetry and need a date to function in real life, so... Rolex's aesthetics are a shoe-in for me.

I only wish they would put the cyclops on the inside of the sapphire, or something.

[Old Expat Beast]

A cyclops at 6 can add balance to a dial, but you might have to DiY.

[904VT]

Originally Posted by douglasf13

Well, a watch without the time and no crown would be even more symmetrical, but I tend to pick function over form in this case.

Speaking of the SD4k, they actually screwed up the symmetry a bit. The Rolex date wheel is inset to accommodate the cyclops, so, on the older SeaDwellers, they downsized the dial a bit to bring the date window closer to the minute track. In the current version, they used the same dial size as the SubDate, so there's too much space between the date and the minute track, which looks odd. Between that and the end links jutting out past the lugs, the old SeaDweller was much better sorted.

Here's a comparison of old vs. new to illustrate what I'm saying:

You may have forever ruined the SD4K for me

I agree, I do like the function of the cyclops. I find it quite useful for business meetings where it is inappropriate to bring out a phone to double check dates and it allows more discrete checks from a farther distance